TOPIC: Alienable and Disposable (A&D)

G.R. No. 198585 July 2, 2012

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,

vs.

METRO INDEX REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

FACTS:

Respondent filed with the RTC an application for juridical confirmation of title over 3 parcel of lands,
which have a consolidated area of 39,490 square meters. Respondent presented witnesses which
testified that: (a) the subject properties are alienable and disposable as evidenced by the
certification issued by the DENR; (b) the respondent and its predecessors-in-interest had been in
possession of the subject properties for more than 50 years; (c) and from the time they inherited the
subject properties, they had actively cultivated them and religiously paid the taxes due.

RTC found that the land being applied for registration is alienable and disposable land; that it is not
within any military or naval reservation; that the possession of herein applicant as well as that of its
predecessor-in-interest has been open, public, continuous, notorious and adverse to the whole
world and therefore, the applicant is entitled to the relief prayed for. Although as a rule, tax
declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they are proof that the holder has a
claim of title over the property and serve as sufficient basis for inferring possession. At any
rate, some owners may be hardworking enough to fully utilize their lands, some may not be as
hardworking. But both do not retain or lose their ownership on the basis alone of the degree of hard
work they put into their respective lands.

Petitioner urged to reverse the CA as the respondent allegedly failed to prove its compliance with
the requirements of either Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529,
stating that there is no evidence that possession and occupation of its predecessors-in-interest
commenced on June 12, 1945 or earlier wherein in fact, the earliest tax declaration presented by
the respondent was for the year 1956. In addition, the respondent failed to show proof of an official
declaration that the subject properties are no longer intended for public service or for the
development of national wealth; hence, the subject properties cannot be acquired by prescription.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the application for juridical confirmation is valid.

RULING:

NO. The Court stated that public domain lands become only patrimonial property not only with a
declaration that these are alienable and disposable. There must also be an express government
manifestation that the property is already patrimonial or no longer retained for public service or the
development of national wealth, under Article 422 of the Civil Code. And only when the property has
become patrimonial can the prescriptive period for the acquisition of property of the public dominion
begin to run.

It is not the notorious, exclusive and uninterrupted possession and occupation of an alienable and
disposable public land for the mandated periods that converts it to patrimonial. A mere casual
cultivation of portions of the land by the claimant does not constitute possession under claim of
ownership. Hence, the Court finds no evidence of such official declaration and for this reason alone,
the respondent’s application should have been dismissed outright.